Problem is that there wasn't much else ( scene) than this Jack, unless a well trodden path that would bisect the frame in the foreground is considered a requirement.
Well, if that's the case, I think perhaps the scene itself, while very pleasant, simply lacks enough merit to qualify as "fine art." In fact, I think most photos (and landscapes) we all try to take are like this.
Quite frankly, there are hundreds of times I find myself thinking, "Wow, that's pretty!"
, when I view a scene I am walking through ... or a flower I see ... or a butterfly I chance across ... things that are pretty for my eye to behold ... and yet they are not pretty enough
to qualify as a photo. In other words, while many (if not most) scenes we find in nature are beautiful to hike through, to enjoy, and to behold ... they simply are not pretty enough (when captured on camera) to prompt someone to hit their hip pocket and buy it. They may be nice to look at, but they really aren't so exceptional as to make someone pay cash for it (even we who took it).
In the end, it takes a truly extraordinary scene/subject, as well as an extraordinary perspective on same, to qualify for this kind of impact ... and so most of what we all capture falls a bit short. I think this is the basic feeling you have for the above.
Thanks for sharing,